1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Table of Contents
by Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Shay Schumm and James W. Forgan
Tiffany Royal, a fifth grade teacher, and Joyce Duryea, a special education teacher, co-teach for part of the school day. Why? Their school has established a new program whereby many students with high-incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild mental retardation, mild behavior disorders) are placed full-time into general education classrooms with support from special education teachers. What do they think of this new partnership? Tiffany Royal describes it this way, “I really wasn't sure what I was volunteering for when the principal asked me to participate. I guess I had confidence that it would all somehow work out, and I knew I was working with a veteran special education teacher. This is my second year teaching in an inclusion classroom and I love it. I think all of the children in my room benefit from it. We (both teachers) really problem solve together and one of us always comes up with a good idea of how to get through to the students.”.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide further information about inclusion for high-incidence disabilities, to describe inclusion models, and to provide suggestions for effective practices for increasing learning for all students when students with high-incidence disabilities are included in the general education classroom.
Inclusion is the placement of students with disabilities into the general education classroom. If the student requires specialized services, they are provided within the general education setting. Including and instructing students with disabilities in the general education classroom became a topic of heightened interest following the Regular Education Initiative (Will 1986) and provides powerful implications for rethinking education for all students. Inclusion has been a controversial topic among special and general educators (Fuchs & Fuchs 1994) and simply mentioning the word evokes strong emotions. In fact, the controversy is reflected in the position statements issued on inclusion by educational and advocacy groups for persons with disabilities. These statements include:
The following goals for inclusion have been identified by several key educational organizations (Council for Exceptional Children 1994a; National Association of State Boards of Education 1994):
The inclusion debate might best be understood through a better understanding of the term full inclusion. Individuals and organizations that support full inclusion believe that all students regardless of the severity of their disability should be educated in the general education classroom. They feel the social benefits from full inclusion for students with disabilities are sufficient reason to place students in the general education classroom, even if academically they are working substantially below the level of the other students. If students need specialized services, the services come to the student in the general education classroom. On the other hand, parents and professionals who express concerns about full inclusion do so because they feel that a full continuum of placement options need to be available for students because the general education classroom cannot always meet the needs of every student.
Some of the reactions to inclusion stem from a lack of information among key stakeholders. Many politicians, parents, administrators, and teachers have heard the word “inclusion” but are unfamiliar with its meaning or implications. Some parents feel that if their child is in the same classroom as children with disabilities, their child might act disabled or model inappropriate behaviors. Some teachers feel confused about what inclusion is and what the implications are for them. An elementary teacher recently said, “I wish someone would just tell us in plain English what they mean by inclusion.”.
Discussion about “responsible inclusion” is important to dispel some of the inaccuracies and myths about educating all students in one setting. Focusing on awareness issues, providing information about inclusion, and continuing to do research in this area will ultimately result in better understanding the effects of inclusion on all students.
Opposing Views on Inclusion. As with most issues, some parents, administrators, teachers, and researchers express concerns about the implementation of inclusion (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, in press; Vergason & Andregg 1993; Woelfel 1994). Some opponents of inclusion feel that general education teachers are not equipped to deal with great student diversity. Some fear that the performance of general education students will decline because students with disabilities might consume too much teacher time. Parents of high-achieving students worry that their child will be relied upon too much as peer tutors of lower achieving students. Some teachers worry that they will be unable to handle the students with disabilities if emergencies arise in the classroom. One teacher said, “If the student with the behavioral disorder starts to tantrum and throw books or chairs, I worry about the safety of the other students in the classroom.” One administrator voiced his concern that too much money is required to support an inclusion classroom, and until the federal government increases funding he is unable to effectively implement inclusion.
Is Inclusion a Place? Recognizing that inclusion is an emotional issue for many people, one of the most frequently asked questions is, “Does inclusion mean all students with disabilities should be educated in general education classrooms?” Fundamental to this question is the notion of “place,” where a student is educated. Proponents of full inclusion (Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps 1991) lobby for all students (regardless of the severity of their disability) to be educated in the general education classroom. Their position is that the best “place” for students is with their general education peers of the same age, regardless of the student's academic achievement or special education need. Thus place (the general education classroom) is the central issue.
We, however, do not feel that “place” is the key issue to successful inclusion. A continuum of placement options (discussed in detail in a separate section of this chapter) assures the best opportunity for students with special needs. Inclusion meets the mandate of Public Law 94-142 in that it is the least-restrictive placement option along the continuum of services that include pull-out classes, self-contained classrooms, special day schools, and residential treatment programs.
Battles (1994) suggests that the goal of inclusion is not to simply place all students in the general education classrooms, but to evaluate each student on an individual basis to determine if he/she will benefit from educational services provided in the general education classroom. Just as one restaurant does not suit the nutritional needs of all adults, one placement option will not suffice for the educational needs of all students. Although inclusion classrooms may have advantages for some students, other students will function and learn better in pull-out resource or self-contained special education settings. The responsibility lies with each school and the key stakeholders involved in the student's placement to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each student and make an appropriate decision as a multi-disciplinary team.
Mainstreaming. When a special education student is mainstreamed, his or her placement is part-time in general education and part-time in special education (Bos & Vaughn 1994). Let's take Larry, for example. Larry is labeled physically impaired and is in a self-contained special education classroom with eleven other students with physical impairments. Through the collaboration of the special and general education teachers and the Individual Education Planning (IEP) committee, Larry is mainstreamed (placed in the general education classroom) for part of his school day. Other students such as Bill, a student with learning disabilities, is mainstreamed for the entire school day. Bill no longer attends the special education classroom and spends the entire day in his general education class.
Inclusion. Inclusion classrooms do not require students to leave the classroom for special instruction, rather the support comes to the student. The special education teacher would come to Bill's general education classroom during language arts and assist and instruct him within the context of the lesson. These teachers would adapt the curriculum for Bill and provide direct instruction and support. Therefore, Bill does not lose valuable academic time transitioning between classes and is more likely to become a fully accepted member of the classroom community.
It is important to note that mainstreaming and inclusion are not mandated by PL 94-142; however, educating students in the least-restrictive environment is an integral component of the law. Both of these placement options are within the definition of the least-restrictive environment with inclusion being the less restrictive of the two options. When deciding on a student's educational placement, it is important for educators and administrators to realize that inclusion is the least-restrictive environment if it meets the student's needs, otherwise mainstreaming or self-contained special education classroom settings are viable alternatives.
Teachers have strong voices when discussing the successes and failures of inclusion because they are on the forefront of the issue: grasping, struggling, and learning what works and how. Often many ideas, adaptations, and interventions appear valuable in planning, but when it comes time to implement them, it is a different story. If inclusion is going to be successful, teachers want adequate support and resources to do the job (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, et al., in press). Some teachers feel that the administrators and policy makers who advocate for inclusion are out of touch with the day-to-day activity in the schools. “I'd like to see them come and teach my class for a day and then see what looks good,” was the response from one elementary teacher. As usual, so many things look good on paper, but the implementation is not nearly so easy. Policy makers, administrators, and university personnel need to spend more time in inclusion classrooms researching strategies and methods that achieve positive results and are feasible and sustainable for teachers to implement.
Successful inclusion requires time to develop and refine. Therefore, planning time for teachers becomes a factor in adapting the curriculum to challenge all students (Gormley & McDermott 1994). One school district addressed the issue of planning by increasing the schools' instructional time by three minutes a day, which permitted them to have four “early release” days for teachers to plan and attend training workshops (Council for Exceptional Children, 1994b). This gave teachers an outlet to collaborate, share, and consult with others to problem solve together. When schools are developing an inclusion model, teachers feel they should have a voice in participating. Some teachers believe they are allowed to choose the grade and subjects they teach; therefore, teaching in an inclusion classroom is another choice of assignment. Mandatory assignment to teach an inclusion class could provoke hostile feelings, adversely affect the quality of teaching in the classroom, and frankly influence many teachers to search for different assignments.
Fear is a barrier to inclusion identified by teachers; the fear of responsibility, additional burdens, and the obligation to ensure that all students learn (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad et al., in press). Some teachers worry that medical, behavioral, and legal problems are going to cause additional trauma to an already taxed framework of education. As one special education teacher put it, “How is a regular teacher going to handle Mario throwing his book when he is frustrated with his work?” Administrators and policy makers need to make sure teachers are not placed in situations where they have no experience, training, or skill to diffuse crisis situations and provide a safe educational environment for all students.
Students provide valuable insight into the strategies that help them learn best (Vaughn, Schumm, Klingner, & Saumell, in press). In a series of studies examining elementary, middle, and high school students' views of adaptations teachers can make to meet the special learning needs of students (see for review Schumm & Vaughn, 1994; Vaughn & Schumm, in press-a), students across achievement groups preferred teachers who made adaptations to meet their learning needs. All students felt strongly that textbook adaptations helped them to understand and learn the material better. The only areas where the students did not prefer adaptations were tests, homework, and textbooks. In the areas of homework, and textbooks, students with learning disabilities did not want differentiated work or materials because they would be unable to collaborate with peers on homework assignments. As one student put it, “How can I call my friends for help when I have a different book than them?”.
Middle and high school students were unanimous in their plea for learning strategies to assist them in learning from text (Vaughn, Schumm, Klingner, et al., in press). Learning strategies were identified as important for teachers to use because they provide a framework that gives students foresight into the content of the text. Students felt that learning strategies would help them understand and remember material for a test.
Students are not opposed to peer tutoring as an adaptation strategy to facilitate learning. Working in pairs is often a preferred strategy since sometimes students can explain a problem to a peer in a way that makes sense. This is the advantage of peers relating to one another and using their own insight, words and concepts to aid a classmate in learning.
Learning strategies, textbook adaptations, grouping practices, peer tutoring, and cooperative learning are all procedures reported by students as having a positive effect on understanding, remembering, and learning material. All these adaptations have important implications for inclusive classrooms since adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of exceptional individuals is core to its success. Not only will the adaptations benefit the students with disabilities, but will positively influence all students.
Does inclusion mean the general education teacher plans for everyone? Yes and no. Yes, because both the general and special education teacher are responsible for teaching all the students in the inclusion classroom and are ultimately responsible for their grades and mastery of the curriculum. Gone are the days of “my kids” and “your kids” because now it is “our kids.” Co-teaching in an inclusion classroom is a partnership that requires teachers to plan and instruct students together. Both teachers bring a wealth of information from two distinct but similar backgrounds. The special education teacher usually possesses the knowledge and expertise to adapt the curriculum and modify materials for special learners. The general education teacher usually has a deeper knowledge of curriculum and subject areas.
A delicate balance is required of both teachers to define and respect each other's personal space in the classroom. Many issues must be worked out in advance to provide the students with a model of partnership and community. Issues at hand include developing joint classroom rules, deciding on the physical arrangement of the classroom, how to set up the grade book and grading procedures, who disciplines the students, and teachers' roles during whole-class and small-group instruction. Communicating clearly about one's feelings and beliefs toward education will help to provide a smooth transition into a new setting.
On the flip side of this question, no, the general education teacher is not required to plan and teach all students all the time. The special education teacher role includes teaching whole-class lessons at any appropriate time, and small-group and individual lessons on an ongoing basis.
Pulling a group of students who need extra help or practice with a skill, regardless of academic level, is another way the special education teacher co-teaches in the classroom. Working with students in flexible groups is appropriate and should be encouraged as a supportive form of teaching. It is important for teachers to recognize that flexible grouping is important in inclusive classrooms as this is a source for direct instruction and re-teaching of skills in a small supportive environment.
We use the term responsible inclusion to describe an orientation to the provision of educational services for students with high-incidence disabilities in the general education classroom that is based on the academic and social progress of the student (Vaughn & Schumm, in press-b). The goal of responsible inclusion is to place all students in the general education classroom unless their academic and/or social needs can not be adequately met there. Thus, with responsible inclusion the academic and social progress of the student is continually monitored. If the students are not making adequate progress, alternatives are considered.
Remember, with responsible inclusion the responsibility is first and foremost to the student, not to maintaining the educational programs or beliefs of the faculty in the school.
We have identified several critical elements that are necessary to develop and maintain a responsible inclusion program. Each of the elements for maintaining a responsible inclusion program is contrasted with approaches taken in irresponsible inclusion models (Vaughn & Schumm, in press-b). A checklist for planning or evaluating a responsible inclusion model for students with high-incidence disabilities is provided in the Appendix.
Student First The first priority is the extent to which the student with disabilities is making academic and/or social progress in the general education classroom. Ongoing assessment and monitoring of student's progress is critical to success.
Place First Students' academic and social progress is second to the location in which their education occurs. If the student is in the general education classroom there is little else to consider because place is the foremost consideration.
Adequate Resources are Considered and Provided for Inclusion Classrooms Personnel understand that for inclusion to be successful, considerable resources, both personnel and material, are required to develop and maintain effective inclusion classrooms.
Resources are Not Considered Prior to the Establishment of Inclusion Classrooms Additional resources for the inclusion model are not considered and inclusion classrooms are established with little consideration of the personnel and physical resources required.
Models are Developed and Implemented at the School-Based Level School site personnel develop inclusive models that are implemented and evaluated to meet the needs of students and families in their community.
School District, State, and/ or Federal Directives Provide the Guidelines for Inclusion School-based models are not mandated from above but are developed to meet the unique needs of the community.
A Continuum of Services is Maintained A range of education programs are available to meet the needs of students with learning disabilities. It is not expected that the needs of all students will be met with full-time placement in the general education classroom.
Full-Inclusion is the Only Service Delivery Model All students are placed in general education classrooms full-time regardless of their needs or their successes.
The Service Delivery Model is Evaluated on an Ongoing Basis The success of the service delivery model is considered and fine-tuned in light of the extent to which it meets the academic and social needs of target students.
The Service Delivery Model is Established and Implemented If problems occur, the personnel are blamed rather than the model evaluated to determine its effectiveness.
Ongoing Professional Development Personnel realize that for teachers and other key stakeholders to be effective at inclusion models, ongoing professional development at the school site level is required.
Professional Development is Not Part of the Model Teachers and other stakeholders are not provided adequate time or opportunity to improve their skills and/or increase their knowledge about effectively meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
Teachers and Other Key Stakeholders Discuss and Develop Their Own Philosophy on Inclusion This philosophy on inclusion guides practice at the school and sets a tone of acceptance for all students. All school personnel are able to discuss the school's philosophy and policy regarding inclusion.
A School Philosophy on Inclusion is Not Developed Several teachers in the school may participate and understand inclusion but it is not part of the school philosophy as a whole and many teachers are unfamiliar with the model and its goods.
Curriculum and Instruction that Meets the Needs of All Students are Developed and Refined Successful inclusion provides for curriculum and instructional practice that makes adaptations for the special learning needs of students and yet challenges all students to achieve at their highest level.
Curriculum and Instruction that Meets the Needs of All Students is Not Considered The success of average and high achieving students is of little interest as long as students with disabilities are included in general education classrooms. Specialized curriculum and instruction for students with LD are not considered.
Roles and Responsibilities of the General and Special Education Teachers are Defined Cooperative relationships between the special and general education teacher require mutual understanding of expectations and requirements that are written and intermittently reviewed.
Roles and Responsibilities of the General and Special Education Teachers are not Delineated or Discussed Teachers do not openly discuss their roles and responsibilities. Instead, they are developed piece-meal and without mutual understanding of responsibilities.
To decide what alternatives are appropriate for students with high-incidence disabilities who are not making adequate progress in the inclusion classroom, the special and general education teachers need to address the following questions:
Placement of students with high-incidence disabilities in general education classrooms for the entire day provides the advantage of a cohesive instructional program with few interruptions. However, many students particularly in reading, need direct intensive instruction focused on their difficulties, often phonics related.
Some students have previously been provided special support services through a resource room model miss the opportunity to leave the classroom for part of the day and work closely with another teacher.
Some teachers have higher expectations for students who are placed full-time in their classroom than for the same student who was pulled-out for resource room support.
Sometimes the material covered and the concept load presented is so out of the student's range of understanding that the student is unable to keep up.
It is possible that placement in an inclusion classroom has reduced the amount of contact time the student has with the teacher, particularly the special education teacher, and the student would benefit from increased instructional time.
After considering these questions you may determine that the inclusion classroom is unlikely to provide an adequate instructional environment for the target student. Now what? Consider the continuum of services and identify an alternative placement.
While mainstreaming and inclusion are not required by law, least-restrictive environment is. The least-restrictive environment assures that youngsters will be educated in the most normalized setting that meets their educational and social needs. This relates to the continuum of services in that educational services for students with special needs are described from most to least restrictive based on this continuum. The least-restrictive environment is full-time placement in the general education classroom with more restrictive environments, including such placements as a special day school or residential facility. Following is a list of the major placement alternatives on the continuum.
Level I represents the least restrictive environment and Level VI represents the most restrictive environment.
Level I - General education classroom with consultation from specialists. At this level, the student is able to function academically and socially in the general education classroom full-time. The specialist provides consultation to the general education teacher.
Level II - General education classroom; Cooperative teaching or co-teaching. At this level, the special education teacher and the general education teacher co-plan and co-teach for a part of the school day. The student with disabilities is included in the general education classroom for the entire school day. Support services are provided within the general education classroom.
Level III - Part-time placement in the special education classroom. The student with disabilities is placed in the general education classroom for part of the school day. The level of restrictiveness depends upon the number of hours the student is withdrawn from the general education classroom and placed in the special education classroom, usually the resource room. The range can be anywhere from a few hours per week to most of the educational time.
Level IV - Full-time special education classroom within a general education school. In this setting, the student with disabilities is educated within a special education classroom that is housed within a general education school. This may include part-time involvement with general education students for such areas as physical education and lunch.
Level V - Special school. In this placement, a student with disabilities is provided special education services within a special education school.
Level VI - Residential treatment or homebound. In these settings, the student is provided special education services either in a setting away from home or the services are provided at his/her home.
There is no one best inclusion model. In fact, in the above section describing the elements of responsible inclusion models we identified one critical component as the development and implementation of models at the school-site level. This does not mean that schools should reinvent new models so that they have their own. It makes sense that school personnel would visit other sites that are implementing inclusion models and that they would borrow and adapt ideas to suit their teachers, students, and families. It does mean that school district or state mandated models are unlikely to be successful for all school sites and that individual schools should develop models that work for their personnel and students.
A Working Forum on Inclusion (Council for Exceptional Children 1994b) indicated that some element of co-teaching was evident in inclusion schools. For students with high-incidence disabilities, intervention services for target students involve some combination of the following:
Flamingo Elementary School's Model. Flamingo Elementary School (Dade County Public Schools, Miami) implements inclusion through the use of mini-schools. One teacher from each of the grade levels (K-6) participates in the inclusion mini-school. Students start in the mini-school in kindergarten and continue through sixth grade. One of the mini-schools, referred to as The Pioneers, has been developed as an inclusion mini-school. Students with disabilities who are identified as likely to benefit from the inclusion mini-school are placed in their age-appropriate general education grade level. Two special education teachers are assigned to 3 general education teachers each, and they spend from 30 to 90 minutes each day (depending upon the number, range from 1–6; and severity of target students' needs) co-teaching in each general education teacher's class. In addition, they co-plan with each teacher for a minimum of 30 minutes per week. The school has a third special education teacher who serves as a resource room teacher and meets the needs of all students (K-6) for whom the inclusion model is not appropriate.
South Miami Heights Elementary School's Model. At South Miami Heights Elementary (Dade County Public Schools, Miami) the majority of students with high-incidence disabilities are located in grades 3, 4, and 5 (there is no 6th grade). There are enough students with disabilities at each grade level to warrant a full-time special education teacher. [This school has aggregated the students with high-incidence disabilities whom they have identified as likely to benefit from inclusion into three classrooms (grades 3, 4, 5).] A general and special education teacher co-teach for the entire school day. There are approximately 32 students in each class evenly divided between students with disabilities and other achieving grade level students. There is a fourth special education teacher at the school who serves as the resource room teacher for other grade-level students in the school as well as a few students at the inclusion grade levels who were not making adequate progress in the inclusion model.
The success of any program that provides education for students with disabilities in the general education classroom requires accommodations by the teacher to meet students' academic and social needs. A consistent finding for elementary, middle, and high school teachers is that they make few adaptations to meet the special learning needs of students with high-incidence disabilities (Baker & Zigmond 1990; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee 1993; Schumm & Vaughn 1991; Vaughn & Schumm 1994). Despite the relatively few adaptations made for special learners, we assumed that some adaptations would be more feasible to implement than others, and some adaptations would be more desirable for teachers to implement than others. We identified suggestions for 30 adaptations that general education teachers could make to enhance the learning of students with special needs (Schumm & Vaughn 1991). We asked elementary, middle, and high school teachers to respond to each of these adaptations based on the extent to which they felt that they were feasible (practical to implement in your classroom) and desirable (how much you would like to implement the adaptation in your classroom). (A copy of this scale is provided in Appendix A.) Since there were few differences between grade levels, the findings across grades are provided.
The findings from this study as well as previous studies (e.g., Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Rothlein, & Saumell, in press) indicate that general education teachers do not find instructional and material adaptations as feasible and are unlikely to make them. Teachers are willing to include mainstreamed students within whole-class activities and to provide encouragement and support for their learning provided that instructional, materials, or environmental adaptations are not required. The implications of this finding are that intensive and robust interventions that meet the needs of the class as a whole while providing the instruction needed by students with special needs are required.
Advocates of the merger between general and special education recognize that if students with high-incidence disabilities are to succeed, general education teachers must be willing to make instructional adaptations to accommodate individual differences among learners. While research indicates that teachers of all grade groupings recognize that making adaptations is important for the academic success of students with disabilities, such adaptations are frequently difficult to implement (Schumm & Vaughn 1991; 1992). Research also indicates that students of all grade groupings prefer teachers who make adaptations, but that such adaptations are rarely employed (Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell 1992; Vaughn, Schumm, & Kouzekanani 1993). How can teachers bridge the gulf between what they know is best practice for students with disabilities while providing optimal instruction for the class as a whole? How can teachers provide students with what they want and need when class sizes are large and the range of student academic diversity is broad.
The answers to these questions are not easy. General education teachers recognize that their professional training in making instructional adaptations is lacking (Schumm & Vaughn 1992). Moreover, there are at least four misconceptions that many teachers hold about instructional adaptations:
Ongoing research and development of adaptive instructional practices is needed to identify efficient, effective, and engaging ways to promote learning for all students. However, existing research on teacher and student perceptions of adaptations as well as research on adaptive instruction conducted in inclusive classrooms has begun to shed light on promising practices (e.g., Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm 1995; Mathes & Fuchs 1993; Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders 1994). In general, teachers (elementary through high school) do not make elaborate individual plans for students with disabilities. Requiring classroom teachers to make separate, individual plans for students with disabilities would be highly inconsistent with current practice and may, indeed, not be necessary. In planning for instruction in classrooms that include students with disabilities, two major factors need to be taken into consideration:
The Planning Pyramid (Schumm, Vaughn, & Leavell 1994) is a framework designed to help teachers plan the content of instruction for students with disabilities while planning for the class as a whole. The Pyramid (see Figure 1) is a way of considering what content needs to be taught so ALL students have the opportunity to learn.
Each axis of the Pyramid represents a “Point of Reflection” for teachers to consider when preparing a unit or lesson. The five Points of Reflection are:
[Note: This figure is not available for electronic dissemination.]
In respect to planning content, the critical feature of the Planning Pyramid is Degrees of Learning. The underlying premise of the Degrees of Learning is that all students can learn, but not all students will learn everything. Therefore, it is important for teachers to prioritize key concepts for each lesson. There are three Degrees of Learning:
In selecting instructional activities for teaching in classrooms that include students with disabilities, teachers should keep in mind the content to be learned (as defined in the Degrees of Learning). The teacher should then consider what instructional activities are best to promote learning for students who may have difficulty learning even the content at the base of the Pyramid. It may be necessary for the teacher to plan adaptations to accommodate individual differences among learners. Adaptations can include general adaptations (e.g., slowing the pacing of instruction or assignments) or adaptations for textbook and other assigned reading. In addition, teachers may consider multi-level activities that allow students of a range of ability levels to engage in classroom instruction in meaningful and productive ways.
In a review of literature on instructional effectiveness as it pertains to students with mild handicaps, Christenson, Ysseldyke, and Thurlow (1989) identified instructional factors that impact student success. One of the key factors is “instructional support.” This instructional support can take the form of accommodations for needs of individuals or subgroups of students. The Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (AEI) in Appendix A (Schumm & Vaughn 1991) lists 30 general adaptations commonly mentioned in the literature. The AEI is an instrument designed to gauge teachers' perceptions of the desirability and feasibility of adaptations for students with disabilities. It can also be used to familiarize teachers with the array of adaptations available and as a discussion starter to help teachers brainstorm about ways to integrate adaptations in their regular teaching routines.
Among the general adaptations that teachers consider to be most desirable is monitoring student learning during a lesson. This is probably the case because monitoring does not require a great deal of advance planning or preparation. The most traditional forms of monitoring include students asking questions during class and teachers circulating around the class during learning activities and checking student written assignments and tests. However, there are other strategies that can be implemented to monitor student understanding on an ongoing basis.
Informal Member Checks. Informal member checks involve simply checking in with students to see if they understand. Member checks should be frequent, yet quick. For example, after presenting a lesson, students can be asked to show the “thumbs up” hand signal if they understand the lesson or to show the “thumbs down” signal if they are having difficulty understanding a part of the lesson.
Student Summaries of Main Points. Asking individual students to sum up the main points at frequent intervals allows a teacher to be aware of whether or not students have a reasonable understanding of the material.
Student Summaries of Directions. After giving instructions for an activity, students can be asked to repeat the instructions in their own words.
Lesson Reaction Sheets. At the end of the lesson, students write a brief reaction to the lesson by answering directed questions such as “What did you learn from this lesson?”, “What was confusing about the lesson?” and “What else would you like to know about the topic?”.
Learning Logs. A type of journal in which students make regular entries about what they have learned in class, learning logs can be used to pinpoint misunderstandings of content, need for reinforcement, and other areas where help may be needed.
K-W-L. Developed by Ogle (1986), K-W-L is a strategy that focuses on what a student Knows about a topic, what a student Wants to learn, and what the student Learned from a reading assignment or lecture. A three column K-W-L worksheet for recording key ideas is provided for each student prior to the lesson.
Think-Pair-Share. McTighe and Lyman (1988) described the Think-Pair-Share. Students are first encouraged to think individually about a topic for two minutes. Then students pair up to discuss the topic. The pairs of students are then signaled by the teacher to share their responses with the class as a whole.
Students frequently find textbooks to be difficult and uninteresting (Schumm, et al. 1992). It is not unusual for teachers (particularly at the secondary level) to abandon reading assignments because of the large numbers of students who can't or won't read. To help students cope with the one-size-fits-all texts issued to them, adaptations are necessary. Textbook adaptations can be defined as any instructional accommodation used to facilitate reading of textbook material (Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell 1994.
The Textbook Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (TAEI) in Appendix B is a measure designed to gauge teachers' perceptions of the desirability and feasibility of textbook adaptations (Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell 1994). The scale includes 34 textbook adaptations commonly mentioned in the literature. Like the Adaptation Evaluation Instrument, the TAEI can be used to familiarize teachers with possible adaptations available and to serve as a springboard for discussion for how to help students when the textbook is tough. A number of excellent resources are available for teachers anxious to implement textbook adaptations (e.g., Irwin & Baker 1989; Tierney, Readence, & Dishner 1990). Textbook adaptations fall into five categories (Schumm & Strickler 1990).
Providing Direct Assistance. Direct assistance means providing a student with human resources to read and understand textbooks. This includes adaptations such as reading the text aloud, individual or small-group instruction, peer support, or summarizing textbook information in lectures or class discussions.
Simplifying Reading Assignments. Simplification of reading assignments can include color coding or highlighting textbooks to indicate key points or constructing abridged versions of textbooks.
Supplementing Reading Assignments. When the reading assignments are difficult, supplementary activities and materials can be employed. This may include computer programs, films, videotapes, recordings, and field trips. It can also involve providing reading materials on the same topic as the textbook, but written on easier readability levels.
Structuring Lessons to Promote Comprehension. This set of adaptations includes instructional activities that enhance learning of text material. The category includes: providing summaries, outlines, study guides; introducing key vocabulary; setting purposes for reading; providing assistance for answering text questions; activating prior knowledge; and structuring post-reading activities to increase retention of material. Study guides are among the most popular ways (among students and teachers) to structure reading assignments. Study guides are being provided by textbook publishers more and more frequently. Wood, Lapp, and Flood (1992) have developed a manual for teachers who prefer to construct their own study guides.
Teaching Reading/Study Strategies. Many adaptations involve providing ongoing teacher or peer support for reading and understanding assignments. The ultimate goal should be to empower all students to become independent learners. Direct instruction of reading/study strategies is something students want, but frequently are not provided - particularly at the secondary level (Schumm, et al. 1992). The investment of time and energy in explaining and modelling how to read and learn from text can have far reaching benefits in helping students become more efficient and effective learners.
As the classrooms of the United States become increasingly more diverse, the need for multi-level activities becomes more imperative. The following activities have been used successfully in inclusion classrooms that include students with a wide range of ability levels. Each provides low, average, and high achieving students procedures to become actively engaged in learning in meaningful and productive ways.
Making Words. A whole class guided activity that helps students become more sensitive to common word patterns, Making Words (Cunningham & Cunningham 1992; Cunningham & Hall 1994a; 1994b), is an activity intended as a supplement to the regular spelling and writing programs. It helps students improve their phonemic awareness as well as their spelling and decoding of words. Initially developed for primary grade students, Making Words can also be used with intermediate or middle school students who need work in common spelling patterns and with prefixes and suffixes.
During a Making Words lesson (approximately 15 minutes) students make 12 to 15 words using a set of individual laminated letters. The teacher guides students through the lesson by directing them to spell words with their letters. The last word includes all the letters that a student has been given that day. For example, a student might be given the letters “e,u,d,h,n,r,t.” The teacher would direct them to spell words such as: red, Ted, Ned, her, hut, rut, under, etc. The final word would be “thunder.” Because each lesson starts with easy words and ends with more difficult words, all students in the class can participate. Students think of Making Words as a learning game, so it is no surprise that they like it and are happy to do the activity 3 to 5 times a week.
Classwide Peer Tutoring. Another whole-class, multi-level activity, Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT), pairs students for activities related to reading fluency and comprehension. The procedure has been researched extensively in a variety of settings including general education and special education classrooms (e.g., Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall 1986; Mathes & Fuchs 1993; Mathes, et al. 1994). Results indicate that if the procedure is implemented consistently (3 times a week over a period of 16 weeks), that students of all ability levels can improve their fluency and comprehension. Best of all, students like it.
With CWPT, students of different reading levels (one average or high and one low) are paired together for a period of at least four weeks. The reading material for the tutoring sessions might be a basal reader, tradebook, or magazine. The important element is that the reading material can be easily read by the lowest reader in the pair.
During CWPT sessions (lasting approximately 30 minutes) the pairs work through a sequence of structured activities that involve oral reading as well as summarization and prediction exercises. Students work with a carefully developed “script” that helps them to follow the sequence of activities and to provide specific feedback and suggestions to each other in sensitive ways. As students work through the script they can earn points. Intensive training is necessary to prepare students, but once they understand the procedure, students become automatic with its implementation. The teacher's primary role during the sessions is to monitor student learning as well as how well students interact with their reading partner.
Collaborative Reading Comprehension Monitoring. Students of mixed ability levels can work in cooperative learning groups to provide support in reading and learning from text. Klingner, et al. (1995) adapted the reciprocal teaching model (Palinscar & Brown 1986) for use with cooperative learning groups which included students with disabilities. Initially, the teacher presents the components of the strategies to the whole class using a great deal of teacher modeling and student role playing. The students are then divided into small peer groups and are instructed to use the procedure to gain a better understanding of the material through peer monitoring.
The students first preview the reading material. After reading short segments of text the students “click and clunk” words or ideas they do or do not understand. The idea behind “clicking and clunking” is that when reading is going well the information seems to “click” in the child's mind; however, when comprehension difficulties occur, the information “clunks” in the mind. The groups work together to formulate explanations for the confusing material. After “click and clunk” strategies are used, the groups collaborate to “get the gist.” To “get the gist” students determine what they think are the most important ideas in the short segment they read. After finishing the entire passage (segment by segment), the student groups complete a “wrap up” to zero in on what was learned in the entire reading lesson and to formulate teacher-like questions that they think might be asked on a test.
Writing Process. The benefits of writing process instruction in general education settings has been recognized for over a decade (Graves 1983). Classrooms throughout the United States have been transformed into writing studios where students interact about their writing in genuine ways. Young authors are prewriting, composing, revising, editing, and publishing their work. Because the writing process involves individual writing and conferencing with teachers and fellow students, it is particularly well suited for classrooms with a wide range of ability levels. Everyone can “plug in” at their own level of writing development and can be nurtured appropriately.
Recently, research on the impact of the writing process in classrooms that included students with disabilities has been initiated with promising results (Zaragoza & Vaughn 1992). Findings indicate that students across achievement levels improve both in their writing competency as well as their feelings about themselves as writers. Bos and Vaughn (1994) provide specific suggestions for how to implement the writing process with students with learning disabilities and behavior disorders.
This chapter provides a discussion of issues related to successful inclusion for students with high-incidence disabilities. A description of responsible inclusion programs for students with high-incidence disabilities is contrasted with irresponsible inclusion programs. General and specific instructional adaptations that teachers can implement to effectively accommodate students with disabilities as well as provide appropriate instruction for all students is also presented. We asked Tiffany Royal, a general education inclusion teacher, and Joyce Duryea, a special education inclusion teacher, to summarize from their experiences which instructional practices work best. Tiffany said, “Don't be afraid to use many of the same methods you would use with other students. At first, I thought everything I did would have to be different or special, then I realized good teaching is what works best. I need to sometimes alter assignments but mostly I do what a good teacher would do.” Joyce added, “Yes, but don't forget pairing good students with students who need help and allowing - no, making - all students participate to the extent they can. Everyone knows they are required to participate, so it keeps them paying attention.” These teachers also use the general and specific adaptations described in this chapter. Tiffany says, “I like the challenge. It helps me be a better teacher and helps all of my students be better learners.”.
Behavioral Disorders - Behavioral characteristics that deviate from the norm and impair the functioning of the individual or others.
Continuum of Services - A hierarchial range of educational services where one level of service leads to another.
Co-Teaching - Two teachers, one with a general education background and the other having a special education background who jointly plan and teach all students in one classroom, sharing the responsibilities and rewards of the students.
Full Inclusion - The education of all students regardless of severity of disability in the general education classroom.
High-Incidence Disabilities - Disabilities that are high in prevalence such as behavioral disorders and learning problems.
Inclusive Schools - Describes the changes that are occurring within the schools and school districts to provide better services for all students by promoting a sense of community and student empowerment.
Learning Strategies - Instructional techniques to help students improve their reading and study better by helping them organize and use new information.
Least-Restrictive Environment - Educational setting that is closest to full participation in the regular classroom, but still meets the needs of the student.
Low-Incidence Disabilities - Less frequently occurring disabilities such as severe mental handicaps, spina bifida, and cerebral palsy.
Mainstreaming - A process for integrating students with special needs in the general education classroom.
Public Law 94-142 - Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requiring a “free, appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs” for all children with disabilities ages three to twenty one.
Public Law 99-457 - An amendment to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to provide special funding incentives for States that would make a free appropriate public education available for all eligible preschool children with disabilities ages three through five.
Reciprocal Friendships - Friendships based on mutual acceptance on a peer rating scale that indicates each peer is equally liked in the relationship. Peer A nominates peer B and peer B nominates peer A as friends.
Regular Education Initiative - The collaboration of professionals in special and general education to provide the best education possible for all children by adapting the regular education environment to better accommodate the student's needs.
Special Education - An individualized education for all children and youth with disabilities. Adaptations include instructional accommodations for individual students or subgroups of students, but they also include multi-level instructional strategies that facilitate learning for all students.
American Federation of Teachers. (1993). Draft Aft Position on Inclusion. (Available from the American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.w., Washington, Dc, 20001.
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1991). Tash Resolutions and Policy Statement. (Available from the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11201 Greenwood Avenue, N., Seattle, Washington, 98133.
Baker, J. M., and N. Zigmond, (1990). “Are Regular Education Classes Equipped to Accommodate Students with Learning Disabilities?” Exceptional Children 56, 515–526.
Battles, B., L. Leach, R. Carter, and J. Mcintire, (1994). Inclusion: Exceeding Expectations Through Collaboration in a Rural Vermont School. Our Experiences Transitioning a Student with Multiple Disabilities from a Special Day School Directly into a Regular 3rd Grade Classroom: Strategies That Have Worked for Us. (Report No. Ec-303-187). Denver, Co: Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 372 555.
Bos, C. S., and S. Vaughn, (1994). Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning and Behavioral Problems. 3rd Ed. Needham Heights, Ma: Allyn and Bacon.
Christenson, S. L., J. E. Ysseldyke, and M. L. Thurlow, (1989). “Critical Instructional Factors for Students with Mild Handicaps: an Integrative Review.” Remedial and Special Education 10, 5:21–31.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1993). CEC Policy on Inclusive Schools and Community Settings. (Available from the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, Va, 22091.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1994a). CEC Policies for Delivery of Services to Exceptional Children. Reston, Va: Author.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1994b). Creating Schools for All Our Students: What 12 School Have to Say. Publication 5064.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). “Concerns About the “Full Inclusion” of Students with Learning Disabilities in Regular Education Classrooms.” Learning Disability Quarterly 16: 126.
Cunningham, P. M., and J. W. Cunningham, (1992). Making Words: Enhancing the Invented Spelling-Decoding Connection. The Reading Teacher 46, 2: 106–115.
Cunningham, P. M., and D. P. Hall, (1994a). Making Big Words: Multilevel, Hands-on Spelling and Phonics Activities. Carthage, Il: Good Apple.
Cunningham, P. M., and D. P. Hall, (1994b). Making Words: Multilevel, Hands-on, Developmentally Appropriate Spelling and Phonics Activities. Carthage, Il: Good Apple.
Delquadri, J., C. R. Greenwood, D. Whorton, J. J. Carta, and R. V. Hall, (1986). “Classwide Peer Tutoring.” Exceptional Children 52, 6: 535–542.
Division for Early Childhood. (1993). Division for Early Childhood Position on Early Intervention Services for Children Birth to Age Eight. (Available from the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, Va, 22091-9494.
Division for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Inclusion: What Does it Mean for Students with Learning Disabilities? (Available from the Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, Va, 22091-9494.
Fuchs, D., and L. S. Fuchs, (1994). Inclusive School Movement and Radicalization of Special Education Reform. Exceptional Children 60, 4: 294–309.
Gormley, K. A., and P. C. McDermott, (1994). Modifying Primary Grade Classrooms for Inclusion: Darrell's 3 Years of Experience. (Report No. Ec-303-188). New Orleans, La: Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 556.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Irwin, J., and I. Baker, (1989). Promoting Active Reading Comprehension Strategies: a Resource Book for Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Klingner, J. K., S. Vaughn, and J. S. Schumm, (1995). Scaffolded-Reading Comprehension Strategy: Instruction for Heterogeneous Classrooms. Manuscript in Preparation.
Mathes, P. G., and L. S. Fuchs, (1993). “Peer-Mediated Reading Instruction in Special Education Resource Rooms.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 8, 4: 233–243.
Mathes, P. G., D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, A. M. Henley, and A. Sanders, (1994). “Increasing Strategic Reading Practice with Peabody Classwide Peer Tutoring.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 9: 44–48.
Mcintosh, R., S. Vaughn, J. S. Schumm, D. Haager, and O. Lee, (1993). “Observations of Students with Learning Disabilities in General Education Classrooms.” Exceptional Children 60, 3: 249–261.
Mctighe, J., and Lyman, F. T. (1988). Cueing Thinking in the Classroom: the Promise of Theory-embedded Tools, Educational Leadership 45, 7: 18–24.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners All: from Mainstreaming to Inclusion. (Available from the National Association of State Boards of Education, 1012 Cameron Street, Alexandria, Va, 22314.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1994). Resolution 94-6: Equal Educational Opportunity. (Available from the National Association of State Boards of Education, 1012 Cameron Street, Alexandria, Va, 22314.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993). Providing Appropriate Education for Students with Learning Disabilities in Regular Education Classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26: 330–332.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). “K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text.” The Reading Teacher 39, 5: 564–570.
Palinscar, A. S., and A. L. Brown, (1986). “Interactive Teaching to Promote Independent Learning from Text.” The Reading Teacher 39, 8: 771–777.
Schumm, J. S., and K. Strickler, (1990). “Guidelines for Adapting Content Area Textbooks: Keeping Teachers and Students Content.” Intervention in School and Clinic 27, 2: 79–84.
Schumm, J. S., and S. Vaughn, (1991). “Making Adaptations for Mainstreamed Students: General Classroom Teachers' Perspectives.” Remedial and Special Education 12, 4: 18–27.
Schumm, J. S., and S. Vaughn, (1992). “Planning for Mainstreamed Special Education Students: Perceptions of General Education Teachers.” Exceptionality 3: 81–98.
Schumm, J. S., and S. Vaughn, (1994). “Students' Thinking about Teachers' Practices.” In T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in Learning Disabilities (pp. 105–129). Greenwich, Ct: Jai Press.
Schumm, J. S., S. Vaughn, D. Haager, J. Mcdowell, L. Rothlein, and L. Saumell. “General Education Teacher Planning: What Can Students with Learning Disabilities Expect?” Exceptional Children 61, 4: 335–352.
Schumm, J. S., S. Vaughn, and A. Leavell, (1994). “Planning Pyramid: a Framework for Planning for Diverse Student Needs During Content Area Instruction.” The Reading Teacher 47, 8: 607–615.
Schumm, J. S., S. Vaughn, and L. Saumell, (1992). “What Teachers Do When the Textbook Is Tough: Students Speak out.” Journal of Reading Behavior 24, 4: 481–503.
Schumm, J. S., S. Vaughn, and L. Saumell, (1994). “Assisting Students with Difficult Textbooks: Teacher Perceptions and Practices.” Reading Research and Instruction 34: 39–56.
Tierney, R., J. Readence, and E. Dishner, (1990). Reading Strategies and Practices: a Compendium. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Vaughn, S., and J. S. Schumm, (in Press-a). Classroom Ecologies: Classroom Interactions and Implications for Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities. In D. S. Speece and B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on Classroom Ecologies: Implications for Inclusion of Children with Learning Disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vaughn, S., and J. S. Schumm, (in Press-b). “Responsible Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Vaughn, S., and Schumm, J. S. (1994). “Middle School Teachers' Planning for Students with Learning Disabilities.” Remedial and Special Education 15, 3: 152–161.
Vaughn, S., J. S. Schumm, B. Jallad, J. Slusher, and S. Saumell, (in Press). “Teachers' Views of Inclusion.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.
Vaughn, S., J. S. Schumm, J. K. Klingner, and L. Saumell. (in Press). “Students' Views of Instructional Practices: Implications for Inclusion.” Learning Disability Quarterly.
Vaughn, S., J. S. Schumm, and K. Kouzekanani, (1993). “What Do Students with Learning Disabilities Think When Their General Education Teachers Make Adaptations?” Journal of Learning Disabilities 26, 8: 545–555.
Vergason, G. A., and M. L. Andregg, (1993). “In My Dreams: a Second Look at Inclusion and Programming.” Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 18, 4: 296–298.
Will, M. (1986). “Educating Children with Learning Problems: a Shared Responsibility.” Exceptional Children 52: 411–415.
Woelfel, K. (1994). “Inclusion, Exclusion, Confusion, and Infusion.” Principal 73, 4: 48,50.
Wood, K., D. Lapp, and J. Flood, (1992). Guiding Readers Through Text: a Review of Study Guides. Newark, De: International Reading Association.
Zaragoza, N., and S. Vaughn, (1992). “The Effects of Process Writing Instruction on Three 2nd-grade Students with Different Achievement Profiles.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 7, 4: 184–193.
Regular classroom teachers often want to make curricular and procedural adaptations in order to accommodate the individual needs of mainstreamed students placed in their classrooms. Although such adaptations may be desirable, the adaptations may not be feasible due to class size, staffing limitations, planning time, etc. For example, it may be highly desirable to tape record textbook chapters for learning disabled mainstreamed students with limited reading skills. However, it may NOT be feasible to tape record the chapters due to limited teacher planning time.
DIRECTIONS: Rate each of the adaptations listed below on a 1 to 7 scale (1 = low; 7 = high) in terms of its desirability (how much you would like to implement the adaptations in your classroom), and its feasibility (how practical it would be to actually implement the adaptation in your classroom).
Low to High.
1. Respect Mainstreamed Students As Individuals With Differences—be aware of their capabilities and problems and make exceptions accordingly; encourage all students to respect mainstreamed students.
1 2 3 4 5 6 .
2. Establish Routines Appropriate For Mainstreamed Students—establish setting so children know what is expected; be consistent.
3. Adapt Classroom Management Strategies That Are Effective With Mainstreamed Students— time out, point systems.
[Note that item # 4 is missing..
5. Establish Personal Relationship With Mainstreamed Students—get to know students as individuals; determine student interests and strengths.
6. Help Mainstreamed Students Find Appropriate Ways To Deal With Feelings—express feelings through drawing or writing; brief periods of time away from class.
7. Communicate With Mainstreamed Students—plan frequent, short, one-to-one conferences; discuss potential modifications with students.
8. Communicate With Special Education Teacher—write notes back and forth and/or talk informally with special education teacher.
9. Communicate With Parents Of Mainstreamed Students—write notes back and forth; talk informally with parents; encourage parents to provide support for students' education.
10. Establish Expectations For Mainstreamed Students—expect the best from mainstreamed students.
11. Make Adaptations For Mainstreamed Students When Developing Long-Range (Yearly/Unit) Plans—establish realistic long-term objectives.
12. Make Adaptations For Mainstreamed Students When Developing Daily Plans—view plans with an eye for things that could pose special problems for mainstreamed students.
13. Plan Assignments And Activities That Allow Mainstreamed Students To Be Successful—structure assignments to reduce frustration.
14. Allot Time For Teaching Learning Strategies As Well As Content—test-taking skills, notetaking skills, etc.
15. Adjust Physical Arrangement Of Room For Mainstreamed Students—modify seating arrangements.
16. Adapt Regular Classroom Materials For Mainstreamed Students—construct study guides; tape record textbook chapters.
17. Use Alternative Materials For Mainstreamed Students—different textbooks; supplemental workbooks.
18. Use Computers To Enhance Learning With Mainstreamed Students—as a tool for writing; as a tool for practicing skills.
19. Monitor Mainstreamed Students' Understanding Of Directions And Assigned Tasks—ask children to repeat or demonstrate what you have asked them to do; check with students to be sure they are performing assignment correctly.
20. Monitor Mainstreamed Students' Understanding Of Concepts Presented In Class—attend to, comment on, and reinforce understanding of vocabulary, abstract ideas, key words, time sequences, and content organization.
21. Provide Individual Instruction For Mainstreamed Students—plan for one-to-one sessions after school; allocate time for individual instruction during class.
22. Pair Mainstreamed Students With A Classmate—to provide assistance with assignments; to provide models for behavior and academics; for social support.
23. Involve Mainstreamed Students In Small Group Activities—allow students from different levels to work in small groups.
24. Involve Mainstreamed Students In Whole Class Activities—include mainstreamed student in class participation.
25. Provide Extra Time For Mainstreamed Students— schedule extra time for skill reinforcement and extra practice.
26. Adapt Pacing Of Instruction—break down materials into smaller segments; use step-by-step approach.
27. Keep Records To Monitor Students' Progress—keep a folder of students' papers; keep a progress chart.
28. Provide Students With Ongoing Feedback About Performance—meet with students periodically to discuss academic and behavioral performance.
29. Adapt Evaluations For Mainstreamed Students—use oral testing; give more time for tests; modify administration procedures.
30. Adapt Scoring/Grading Criteria For Main-Streamed Students—alter criteria for grades.
This document has been supported by the United States Department of Education, Grant Award B023E90014, Research on General Education Teacher Planning and Adaptation for Students with Handicaps, to the School of Education, University of Miami. Licensed Curriculum Handbook subscribers are authorized to reproduce this instrument for the purpose of self-evaluation. However, reproduction for research purposes requires the written permission of the authors, who are interested in collaborating with other researchers to extend this study and share results from this evaluation instrument. Please contact Sharon Vaughn or Jeanne Schumm, Investigators, P.O. Box 248065. Coral Gables, Florida, 33124.
DIRECTIONS: Rate each of the textbook adaptations listed below on a 1–7 scale (1 = low; 7 = high) in terms of its DESIRABILITY (how much you would like to implement the adaptation in your classroom), its FEASIBILITY (how practical it would be to actually implement the adaptation in your classroom), and ACTUAL USE (what you presently do in classroom instruction). There are no right answers. We are interested in what you think.
1. Teach Study Strategies To Improve Retention Of Text Material (e.g., teach test taking techniques, memory tricks, rehearsal strategies).
2. Work With Students Individually Or In Small Groups To Master Textbook Material (e.g., after school study sessions, tutoring).
3. Provide Assistance For Answering Text-Based Questions (e.g., reword text questions in easier terms; provide page number where answer can be found; slice questions—give alternatives or ask for only a part).
4. Structure Post-Reading Activities To Increase Retention Of Content (e.g., have students answer text-based questions, write summaries, predict possible test questions).
5. Summarize/Reduce Textbook Information To Guide Classroom Discussions And Independent Reading (e.g., put most salient concepts on overhead or on chalkboard; outline or summarize key ideas on handouts).
6. Determine Student Reading Levels To Identify Students With Potential Problems With Textbook Reading (e.g., determine standardized test scores, read IEPs and/or cumulative folders, administer informal reading inventories or cloze test).
7. Slow Down Pacing Of Reading Assignments (e.g., cover less material; allow time for students to reread material).
8. Avoid Use Of Textbooks.
9. Develop A Study Guide Or Study Outline To Direct Learning From Text (e.g., create participatory organizers to be filled in during the reading; have students complete tables, charts, etc. as they read; create paragraph by paragraph study guidelines).
10. Preview Reading Assignments With Students To Orient Them To Topic And Budget Reading/Study Time (e.g., examine headings, subheadings, graphics; read introduction, summary).
11. Substitute Or Supplement Textbook Reading Assignments With Direct Experiences (e.g., plan field trips, experiments, projects).
12. Audiotape Textbook Content.
13. Preview Textbook With Students To Orient Them To Textbook Organization And Learning Tools (e.g., locate table of contents, index, glossary).
14. Provide Students With Purposes For Reading (e.g., introduce assignments with a reading goal so students know what they need to focus on during a reading assignment).
15. Place Students In Cooperative Learning Groups To Master Textbook Content (e.g., organize students into groups of 3 or 4 to read and discuss text material).
16. Use Multi-Level, Multi-Material Approach (e.g., allow students to read from various sources representing a variety of readability levels to achieve common goals).
17. Teach Comprehension Monitoring Techniques To Improve Ongoing Understanding Of Text (e.g.,encourage students to ask questions when they do not understand; teach students to take notes when their comprehension breaks down).
18. Structure Opportunities For Students To Activate Prior Knowledge Before Starting A Reading Assignment (e.g., brainstorm about topic, develop mental imagery, construct semantic maps before reading).
19. Provide An Overview Of A Story Or Content Before A Reading Assignment (e.g., diagram major concepts or events; discuss major concepts or events).
20. Reduce Length Of Assignments (e.g.divide chapters into manageable length; prioritize content and assign only vital information).
21. Introduce Key Vocabulary Before A Reading Assignment (e.g., discuss specialized terms, preview new words in context).
22. Read Textbook Aloud To Students.
23. Demonstrate/Model Effective Reading Strategies And Comprehension Techniques (e.g., show students how to reduce textbook material for study purposes; read text orally and identify main ideas and salient details.
24. Determine Level Of Difficulty Of Textbooks (e.g., evaluate textbook using readability formula, evaluate text friendliness or considerateness).
25. Use Film/Videotapes/Recordings To Supplement Or Substitute Textbook Reading.
26. Use Computer Programs To Supplement Or Substitute Textbook Reading.
27. Color Code Textbooks (e.g., use different colors to mark key words, definitions, and important facts).
28. Create Interest In Reading Assignment To Motivate Students (e.g., invite resource people to classroom, relate content to life).
29. Explain Textbook Information Thoroughly In Classroom Lectures And Presentations.
30. Teach Reading Strategies To Improve Comprehension Of Text (e.g., SQ3R, taking notes from text, semantic mapping, underlining/ highlighting text).
31. Pair Students To Master Textbook Content (e.g., pair good and poor readers; structure radio reading activities—two students take turns reading together).
32. Teach Students To Use Graphic Aids (e.g., illustrations, pictures, tables, charts, and graphs) To Understand Information Presented In Textbook.
33. Construct Abridged Versions Of Textbook Content Or Use Publisher's Abridged Versions (e.g., prepare written material at student's reading level that contains concepts being taught; use lowlevel texts which simplify reading assignments).
34. Provide Students With Questions To Guide Their Reading.
DIRECTIONS Circle the letter of the most appropriate response for each of the following overall questions. Overall, my knowledge and skills for making textbook adaptations are
Overall, my willingness to use my planning time to create textbook adaptations to meet individual student differences can be described as
If textbook publishers, district or school curriculum specialists, etc. were to provide specific textbook adaptations for me to use in my classroom, my overall willingness to use such textbook adaptations to meet individual student differences can be described as
This document has been supported by the United States Department of Education, Grant Award H02E90014, Research on General Education Teacher Planning and Adaptation for Students with Handicaps, to the School of Education, University of Miami. Licensed Curriculum Handbook subscribers are authorized to reproduce this instrument for the purpose of self-evaluation. However, reproduction for research purposes requires the written permission of the authors, who are interested in collaborating with other researchers to extend this study and share results from this evaluation instrument. Please contact Sharon Vaughn or Jeanne Schumm, Investigators, P.O. Box 248065, Coral Gables, Florida 33124.
Copyright © 1998 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication—including the drawings, graphs, illustrations, or chapters, except for brief quotations in
critical reviews or articles—may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.